Hi. On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 11:02 +0000, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 03/12/2012 06:01, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > One of the advantages of a standards organization such as the IETF is > > cross-concern review. For the IETF, one very strong cross-concern is > > security. Another one (also for my personally) is internationalization. > > Another, more vague one, is general architecture. Early running code is > > very often (not always) characterized by the fact that such > > cross-concerns are actively or passively ignored. > > An excellent point. The fact that a hack works, and can be implemented, > does not alter the fact that it's a hack. This is the sort of thing that > cross-area review is supposed to look for. As a gen-art reviewer, I am > sometimes surprised by what gets through to Last Call in the regular > process - if the whole review process is squeezed down to a couple > of weeks, we will definitely miss cross-area issues.
I also have the experience as a gen-art reviewer of seeing some pretty awful pieces of work making through even to IESG review. However, I don't think that a short last call cycle need necessarily compromise cross-area review. There has always been the possibility for authors or wg chairs to request a early gen-art review with a view to checking out whether something is in good shape cross-area and for non-specialists. This facility is not much used (I think I have done 3 in 8 years on the gen-art team) but it is there, and I guess the team could cope with a few more since it doesn't drastically alter the total workload. So it would be entirely possible for a draft that might be fast-tracked to get some early review. Given that there is also open source code, reviewers have the chance to take a look at that and see the degree of hackiness involved. So I'd be for trying the experiment - and asking some cross-area reviewers to take an early sniff. Regards, Elwyn > > Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy specifications > is a Bad Thing. > > The Interop show network used to be a Very Good Thing. We've lost that, > though I was delighted to see some actual running code at Bits-n-Bytes > in Atlanta. More please. Maybe a prize for Best Demo? > > Brian > > > > > I had a look at your draft and checked for "security" and > > "internationalization", but only found the former, and not not in a > > discussion about how this proposal would make sure that cross-concerns > > are adequately addressed. > > > > Regards, Martin. > > > > On 2012/12/02 5:12, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement. > >> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as > >> an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then > >> that's fine, it can die. > >> > >> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't > >> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no > >> "official" status whatsoever. > >> > >> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome. > >> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this > >> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible, > >> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Stephen. > >> > >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft > >> > > >
